Time: Tue Jan 14 21:45:51 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
id SAA03935; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 18:18:09 -0700 (MST)
release 1.8c) with spool id 19158 for
LIBERTARIANS@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 18:11:12 -0700
listserv.arizona.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id SAA28422 for
<LIBERTARIANS@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 18:11:11 -0700
(MST)
by primenet.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id SAA00914 for
<LIBERTARIANS@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 18:10:52 -0700
(MST)
Message-ID: <3.0.16.19970114212204.08cfa108@mailhost.primenet.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 21:22:07 -0800
<LIBERTARIANS@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
<LIBERTARIANS@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: all rights reserved?
To: LIBERTARIANS@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
>Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 21:20:48 -0800
>To: Psyberdude <rturmel@clark.net>
>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>Subject: all rights reserved?
>Bcc: friends, liberty lists
>
>At 07:11 PM 1/14/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>Paul what does "all rights reserved without prejudice" mean? I notice
>>that you affix this sometimes to letters you mail to people.
>>
>>Is it something I should use also?
>
>
>Dear Psyberdude,
>
>Nobody answered that question
>better than the late Howard Freeman,
>in his classic essay entitled
>"The Two United States and the Law,"
>which follows:
>
>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>
> "The Two United States and the Law"
>
> by
>
> Howard Freeman
> P. O. Box 364
> Lusk, Wyo. 82225
>
>
>Our forefathers, weary of the oppressive measures that King
>George III's government forced upon them, in common declared
>their independence from England in 1776. They were not expected
>to be successful in that resistance. The moneyed people had
>backed England for two major reasons. First, our forefathers
>wanted a rigid, written Constitution "set in concrete." They
>were familiar with the so-called Constitution of England which
>consisted largely of customs, precedents, traditions, and
>understandings, often vague and always flexible. They wanted the
>principle of English common law, that an act done by any official
>person or law-making body beyond his or its legal competence was
>simply void. Second, the thirteen little colonies desired to
>base their union on substance (gold and silver) -- real money.
>They well knew how the despotic governments of Europe were
>mortgaged to the hilt -- lock, stock, and barrel, the land, the
>people, everything -- to certain wealthy men who controlled the
>banks, the currency, and all credit, who lent credit but did not
>loan gold and silver!
>
>The United States of America was made up of a union of what is
>now fifty sovereign States, a three-branch (legislative,
>executive, and judicial) Republic known as The United States of
>America, or as termed in this article, the Continental United
>States. Its citizenry live in one of the fifty States, and its
>laws are based on the Constitution, which is based on Common Law.
>
>Less than one hundred years after we became a nation, a loophole
>was discovered in the Constitution by cunning lawyers in league
>with the international bankers. They realized that a separate
>nation existed, by the same name, that Congress had created in
>Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. This "United States" is a
>Legislative Democracy within the Constitutional Republic, and is
>known as the Federal United States. It has exclusive, unlimited
>rule over its citizenry, the residents of the District of
>Columbia, the territories and enclaves (Guam, Midway Islands,
>Wake Island, Puerto Rico, etc.), and anyone who is a citizen by
>way of the 14th Amendment (naturalized citizens).
>
>Both United States have the same Congress that rules in both
>nations. One "United States," the Republic of fifty States, has
>the "stars and stripes" as its flag, but without any fringe on
>it. The Federal United States' flag is the stars and stripes
>
>with a yellow fringe, seen in all the courts. The abbreviations
>of the States of the Continental United States are, with or
>without the zip codes, Ala., Alas., Ariz., Ark., Cal., etc. The
>abbreviations of the States under the jurisdiction of the Federal
>United States, the Legislative Democracy, are AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA,
>etc. (without any periods).
>
>Under the Constitution, based on Common Law, the Republic of the
>Continental United States provides for legal cases (1) at Law,
>(2) in Equity, and (3) in Admiralty:
>
>
>(1) Law is the collective organization of the individual right
> to lawful defense. It is the will of the majority, the
> organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is
> the substitution of a common force for individual forces, to
> do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful
> right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties;
> to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign
> over us all. Since an individual cannot lawfully use force
> against the person, liberty, or property of another
> individual, then the common force -- for the same reason
> -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty,
> or property of individuals or groups. Law allows you to do
> anything you want to, as long as you don't infringe upon the
> life, liberty or property of anyone else. Law does not
> compel performance. Today's so-called laws (ordinances,
> statutes, acts, regulations, orders, precepts, etc.) are
> often erroneously perceived as law, but just because
> something is called a "law" does not necessarily make it a
> law. [There is a difference between "legal" and "lawful."
> Anything the government does is legal, but it may not be
> lawful.]
>
>
>(2) Equity is the jurisdiction of compelled performance (for any
> contract you are a party to) and is based on what is fair in
> a particular situation. The term "equity" denotes the
> spirit and habit of fairness, justness, and right dealing
> which would regulate the intercourse of men with men. You
> have no rights other than what is specified in your
> contract. Equity has no criminal aspects to it.
>
>
>(3) Admiralty is compelled performance plus a criminal penalty,
> a civil contract with a criminal penalty.
>
>
>By 1938 the gradual merger procedurally between law and equity
>actions (i.e., the same court has jurisdiction over legal,
>equitable, and admiralty matters) was recognized. The nation was
>bankrupt and was owned by its creditors (the international
>bankers) who now owned everything -- the Congress, the
>Executive, the courts, all the States and their legislatures and
>executives, all the land, and all the people. Everything was
>mortgaged in the national debt. We had gone from being
>sovereigns over government to subjects under government, through
>the use of negotiable instruments to discharge our debts with
>limited liability, instead of paying our debts at common law with
>gold or silver coin.
>
>The remainder of this article explains how this happened, where
>we are today, and what remedy we have to protect ourselves from
>this system.
>
>
> Our Present Commercial System of "Law"
> and the REMEDY Provided for Our Protection
>
>The present commercial system of "law" has replaced the old and
>familiar Common Law upon which our nation was founded. The
>following is the legal thread which brought us from sovereigns
>over government to subjects under government, through the use of
>negotiable instruments (Federal Reserve Notes) to discharge our
>debts with limited liability instead of paying our debts at
>common law with gold or silver coin.
>
>The change in our system of law from public law to private
>commercial law was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United
>States in the Erie Railroad vs. Thompkins case of 1938, after
>which case, in the same year, the procedures of Law were
>officially blended with the procedures of Equity. Prior to 1938,
>all U.S. Supreme Court decisions were based upon public law --
>or that system of law that was controlled by Constitutional
>limitation. Since 1938, all U.S. Supreme Court decisions are
>based upon what is termed public policy.
>
>Public policy concerns commercial transactions made under the
>Negotiable Instrument's Law, which is a branch of the
>international Law Merchant. This has been codified into what is
>now known as the Uniform Commercial Code, which system of law was
>made uniform throughout the fifty States through the cunning of
>the Congress of the United States (which "United States" has its
>origin in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, as
>distinguished from the "United States," which is the Union of the
>fifty States).
>
>In offering grants of negotiable paper (Federal Reserve Notes)
>which the Congress gave to the fifty States of the Union for
>education, highways, health, and other purposes, Congress bound
>all the States of the Union into a commercial agreement with the
>Federal United States (as distinguished from the Continental
>United States). The fifty States accepted the "benefits" offered
>by the Federal United States as the consideration of a commercial
>agreement between the Federal United States and each of the
>corporate States. The corporate States were then obligated to
>obey the Congress of the Federal United States and also to assume
>their portion of the equitable debts of the Federal United States
>to the international banking houses, for the credit loaned. The
>credit which each State received, in the form of federal grants,
>was predicated upon equitable paper.
>
>This system of negotiable paper binds all corporate entities of
>government together in a vast system of commercial agreements and
>is what has altered our court system from one under the Common
>Law to a Legislative Article I Court, or Tribunal, system of
>commercial law. Those persons brought before this court are held
>to the letter of every statute of government on the federal,
>state, county, or municipal levels unless they have exercised the
>
>REMEDY provided for them within that system of Commercial Law
>whereby, when forced to use a so-called "benefit" offered, or
>available, to them, from government, they may reserve their
>former right, under the Common Law guarantee of same, not to be
>bound by any contract, or commercial agreement, that they did not
>enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.
>
>This is exactly how the corporate entities of state, county, and
>municipal governments got entangled with the Legislative
>Democracy, created by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the
>Constitution, and called here The Federal United States, to
>distinguish it from the Continental United States, whose origin
>was in the Union of the Sovereign States.
>
>The same national Congress rules the Continental United States
>pursuant to Constitutional limits upon its authority, while it
>enjoys exclusive rule, with no Constitutional limitations, as it
>legislates for the Federal United States.
>
>With the above information, we may ask: "How did we, the free
>Preamble citizenry of the Sovereign States, lose our guaranteed
>unalienable rights and be forced into acceptance of the equitable
>debt obligations of the Federal United States, and also become
>subject to that entity of government, and divorced from our
>Sovereign States in the Republic, which we call here the
>Continental United States?" We do not reside, work, or have
>income from any territory subject to the direct jurisdiction of
>the Federal United States. These are questions that have
>troubled sincere, patriotic Americans for many years. Our lack
>of knowledge concerning the cunning of the legal profession is
>the cause of that divorce, but a knowledge of the truth
>concerning the legal thread, which caught us in its net, will
>restore our former status as a free Preamble citizen of the
>Republic. The answer follows:
>
>Our national Congress works for two nations foreign to each
>other, and by legal cunning both are called The United States.
>One is the Union of Sovereign States, under the Constitution,
>termed in this article the Continental United States. The other
>is a Legislative Democracy which has its origin in Article I,
>Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, here termed the Federal
>United States. Very few people, when they see some "law" passed
>by Congress, ask themselves, "Which nation was Congress working
>for when it passed this or that so-called law?" Or, few ask,
>"Does this particular law apply to the Continental citizenry of
>the Republic, or does this particular law apply only to residents
>of the District of Columbia and other named enclaves, or
>territories, of the Democracy called the Federal United States?"
>
>Since these questions are seldom asked by the uninformed
>citizenry of the Republic, it was an open invitation for
>"cunning" political leadership to seek more power and authority
>over the entire citizenry of the Republic through the medium of
>"legalese." Congress deliberately failed in its duty to provide
>a medium of exchange for the citizenry of the Republic, in
>harmony with its Constitutional mandate. Instead, it created an
>abundance of commercial credit money for the Legislative
>Democracy, where it was not bound by Constitutional limitations.
>Then, after having created an emergency situation, and a
>tremendous depression in the Republic, Congress used its
>emergency authority to remove the remaining substance (gold and
>silver) from the medium of exchange belonging to the Republic,
>and made the negotiable instrument paper of the Legislative
>Democracy (Federal United States) a legal tender for Continental
>United States citizenry to use in the discharge of debts.
>
>At the same time, Congress granted the entire citizenry of the
>two nations the "benefit" of limited liability in the discharge
>of all debts by telling the citizenry that the gold and silver
>coins of the Republic were out of date and cumbersome. The
>citizens were told that gold and silver (substance) was no loner
>needed to pay their debts, that they were now "privileged" to
>discharge debt with this more "convenient" currency, issued by
>the Federal United States. Consequently, everyone was forced to
>"go modern," and to turn in their gold as a patriotic gesture.
>The entire news media complex went along with the scam and
>declared it to be a forward step for our democracy, no longer
>referring to America as a Republic.
>
>From that time on, it was a falling light for the Republic of
>1776, and a rising light for Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal
>Democracy, which overcame the depression, which was caused by a
>created shortage of real money. There was created an abundance
>of debt paper money, so-called, in the form of interest-bearing
>negotiable instrument paper called Federal Reserve Notes, and
>other forms of paperwork credit instruments.
>
>Since all contracts since Roosevelt's time have the colorable
>consideration of Federal Reserve Notes, instead of a genuine
>consideration of silver and gold coin, all contracts are
>colorable contracts, and not genuine contracts. [According to
>Black's Law Dictionary (1990), colorable means "That which is in
>appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be,
>hence counterfeit, feigned, having the appearance of truth."]
>
>Consequently, a new colorable jurisdiction, called a statutory
>jurisdiction, had to be created to enforce the contracts. Soon
>the term colorable contract was changed to the term commercial
>agreement to fit circumstances of the new statutory jurisdiction,
>which is legislative, rather than judicial, in nature. This
>jurisdiction enforces commercial agreements upon implied consent,
>rather than full knowledge, as it is with the enforcement of
>contracts under the Common Law.
>
>All of our courts today sit as legislative Tribunals, and the so-
>called "statutes" of legislative bodies being enforced in these
>Legislative Tribunals are not "statutes" passed by the
>legislative branch of our three-branch Republic, but as
>"commercial obligations" to the Federal United States for anyone
>in the Federal United States or in the Continental United States
>who has used the equitable currency of the Federal United States
>and who has accepted the "benefit," or "privilege," of
>discharging his debts with the limited liability "benefit"
>offered to him by the Federal United States ... EXCEPT those who
>availed themselves of the remedy within this commercial system of
>law, which remedy is today found in Book 1 of the Uniform
>Commercial Code at Section 207.
>
>When used in conjunction with one's signature, a stamp stating
>"Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-207" is sufficient to indicate to the
>magistrate of any of our present Legislative Tribunals (called
>"courts") that the signer of the document has reserved his Common
>Law right. He is not to be bound to the statute, or commercial
>obligation, of any commercial agreement that he did not enter
>knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally, as would be the case
>in any Common Law contract.
>
>Furthermore, pursuant to U.C.C. 1-103, the statute, being
>enforced as a commercial obligation of a commercial agreement,
>must now be construed in harmony with the old Common Law of
>America, where the tribunal/court must rule that the statute does
>not apply to the individual who is wise enough and informed
>enough to exercise the remedy provided in this new system of law.
>He retains his former status in the Republic and fully enjoys his
>unalienable rights, guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the
>Republic, while those about him "curse the darkness" of
>Commercial Law government, lacking the truth needed to free
>themselves from a slave status under the Federal United States,
>even while inhabiting territory foreign to its territorial venue.
>
>
> ADDENDUM
>
>U.C.C. 1-207:4 Sufficiency of reservation.
>
>Any expression indicating any intention to preserve rights is
>sufficient, such as "without prejudice," "under protest," "under
>reservation," or "with reservation of all our rights."
>
>The Code states an "explicit" reservation must be made.
>"Explicit" undoubtedly is used in place of "express" to indicate
>that the reservation must not only be "express" but it must also
>be "clear" that such a reservation was intended.
>
>The term "explicit" as used in U.C.C. 1-207 means "that which is
>so clearly stated or distinctively set forth that there is no
>doubt as to its meaning." ...
>
>
>U.C.C. 1-207:7 Effect of reservation of rights.
>
>The making of a valid reservation of rights preserves whatever
>rights the person then possesses and prevents the loss of such
>right by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel ....
>
>
>U.C.C. 1-207:9 Failure to make reservation.
>
>When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a
>reservation thereof causes a loss of the right and bars its
>assertion at a later date ....
>
>
>U.C.C. 1-103:6 Common law.
>
>The Code is "Complementary" to the common law which remains in
>force except where displaced by the Code ....
>
>A statute should be construed in harmony with the common law
>unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the common
>law. ... "The Code cannot be read to preclude a common law
>action."
>
>
> EXAMPLE
>
>Your Honor, my use of "Without Prejudice UCC 1-207" above my
>signature on this document indicates that I have exercised the
>"Remedy" provided for me in the Uniform Commercial Code in Book 1
>at Section 207, whereby I may reserve my Common Law right not to
>be compelled to perform under any contract, or agreement, that I
>have not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.
>And, that reservation serves notice upon all administrative
>agencies of government -- national, state and local -- that I
>do not, and will not, accept the liability associated with the
>"compelled" benefit of any unrevealed commercial agreement.
>
>
> # # #
====================================================================
[Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @]
[65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.]
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win]
We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding.
Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan
====================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail